You can do historical method without historiography.
TRUE
FALSE
The correct answer and explanation is :
FALSE
The historical method cannot be effectively conducted without historiography. Historiography refers to the study of how history is written, including the various interpretations, methodologies, and sources historians use to analyze and construct historical narratives. It is an essential part of the historical method, which involves the critical examination of sources, interpretation of historical evidence, and development of a coherent account of past events.
The historical method relies on several key steps: identifying a research question, collecting primary and secondary sources, analyzing these sources for authenticity and bias, synthesizing the information, and constructing a narrative or argument. Without historiography, historians would lack an understanding of how previous scholars have approached similar topics, which methodologies have been used, and how historical narratives have evolved over time. This context is crucial because history is not simply a collection of facts but a dynamic field where interpretations change based on new evidence, perspectives, and theoretical frameworks.
For example, studying the causes of World War I without considering the historiography of the event would limit the historian’s ability to engage with various interpretations—such as the traditional blame on Germany (Fischer thesis), the structural causes in European diplomacy, or economic motivations. By understanding historiography, historians can critically assess past interpretations and contribute new insights rather than simply repeating outdated or biased narratives.
Thus, historiography is a fundamental aspect of the historical method. Without it, historical research would lack depth, context, and critical engagement with existing scholarship, making it difficult to produce meaningful historical analysis.